August 12, 2012

Says Robin Givhan — whose stock in trade is observation but who failed to observe that Ryan had an unruly tuft of hair sticking up at the back top of his head.

Romney took the stage wearing a formal white shirt, blue tie and no jacket. Conveying the ease of a man wearing a cervical halo, Romney greeted the audience and after brief remarks, and a slip-of-the-tongue that had him referring to Ryan as the next “president” of the United States, the congressman bounded forth.

I had to look up "cervical halo." (Clue: It's not something religious— nothing about Mormons! — and it's not something uterine — nothing about the war on women.)

Ryan wore a dark suit—of the extra-roomy variety—and an open-collared white shirt. A rather large flag pin decorated his jacket lapel. He was dressed in the uniform that President Barack Obama popularized during the 2008 campaign. Obama wore the tieless black suit whenever he was looking to convey authority and gravitas in an informal situation. It was his go-to look for late night talk shows, for instance. Obama accessorized this look with cool, with nonchalance. Ryan prefers the aw-shucks understatement of an earnestly furrowed brow.

Aw-shucks? What's aw-shucks about Paul Ryan? "Shucks" — according to the Urban Dictionary — is a "backwoods" interjection. Obama has "authority and gravitas" wearing exactly the same thing as Ryan, because Obama brings "cool," but Ryan brings "aw shucks." Givhan is subtly approaching the line of racial stereotypes, isn't she? No, she's not. She's already labeled Romney and Ryan "white guys" (and she'll end the column by calling them "white guys" again).

[A]s a pure visual, the image of the two men on stage in Norfolk, Virginia lacked dazzle or texture. It was a bit like seeing double.

These white guys all look alike. Oh? Am I being unfair? Givhan already called them "look-alike white guys." They don't look much alike to me. Ryan has strikingly blue eyes, a 5-o'clock shadow, a young man's cropped haircut, and an earnestly furrowed brow that reminds me of John Roberts. Romney has hazel eyes (not so striking, since I had to look that up), a very clean-shaven face, and an older man's long-on-top, combed-straight-back hair.

The combination of their matching white shirts and black trousers—plus one jacket and one tie—meant that any hint of personal style was lost in a mish-mash of menswear remnants.

Givhan wants to say they are over-controlled in their hair and their clothes, but the facts don't fit the preferred template. Neither man wore a business get-up, and each man stepped down from that level in his own way — Romney by leaving off the jacket and rolling up the sleeves and Ryan by not wearing a tie and opening the collar. It was a nice, casual coordination, but political preference grips Givhan and she won't admit it.

Givhan complains that the TV cameras didn't let us see Ryan's children:

The moment could have benefited from a loose shot of a tow-headed kid making a silly face or flashing a charming grin—an image that would connect something unscripted and personal to Ryan.

And what would Givhan have said about those kids if only she could have seen them? Would she have enthused about their charm and silliness? Or would she have seen them as over-controlled, stiff conservatives? Recall how she treated the children (and wife) of now-Chief Justice John Roberts, back in 2005:

His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues -- like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack -- having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother -- enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother's skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes....

And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape....

AN INVITATION TO EVERY-ONE TO JOIN US AT THE OFF-THE-RECORD BAR ACROSS THE WH.

TODAY, SUNDAY, 6 PM.

We will have a panel (George from ABC, Candy from CNN, Andrea from NBC, and Cokie from NPR). The focus is how BAD is Romney-Ryan ticket. What can we (the WH, Hill, DNC, K-street, media, etc.) do to destroy the GOP. The panel will be moderated by the author of the wonderful book, The Candidate, that shows how Obama destroyed Clinton in Chapter 4. The blue-print to destroy Romney-Ryan.

The bar entry has a password. You will have to txt via your phone. The code: DESTROY.

Won't you join us? You do want to be part of the destiny? Come this is right thing.

Another perspective..."I have predicted that Romney will win by a landslide. The choice of Paul Ryan means that Romney has chosen the path that will maximize the significance of his victory and its impact on the races for seats in the House and Senate. As in 1980, this is going to be a national election -- in which local particularities count for much less than usual.

If you still have doubts, remember November, 2010."

http://www.ricochet.com/main-feed/Romney-s-Declaration-of-War

I think Romney is going to win by a landslide too. I think Ryan is a "aw shucks." type of guy too but in an endearing way, very appealing to people. I see an "aw shucks" guy as being a modest guy without having an excessive ego.

Three months of condescension and at most veiled mockery. Even longer if they are elected. I followed the link, and found a second link to Gihvens' Michelle Obama book. The contrast was almost laughable.

In fact, even in college (so, the age before Obama), jacket without tie was a popular choice for professors. It was also popular with the students because tying a tie is a hassle. Rather, you keep an extra jacket anywhere you might need to suddenly dress up at, then you can throw it over any dress suit and fit the occasion.

Givhan is either completely ignorant of men's fashion when I know more than her or, for some reason, addicted to the idea that Obama is a trend setter.

"He's rather thin - probably skinnier than Obama if that's possible - and his suit jackets always look a size or two too large."

Actually though Obama is tall and has a slim look, if you notice his waist without a coat, you will see he isn't that slim. Ryan is slim but is very broad shouldered I noticed for the first time yesterday when he wasn't wearing his coat.

It is remarkable that all the commentary I have seen so far about the Ryan selection is the failure to note the most obvious; the Romney campaign's need for a response to Obama's advantage with women voters.

Though it looks like Ms. Givhan has recognized the danger and is moving to counter the urge to straighten Paul Ryan's shirt collar and make him a nice lunch to fill out that skinny frame.

"How long until Given savages Ryan's wife in the same manner she took after Calista Gingrich?"

That's right. Poor Callista.

If only I could meet a nice young woman like her, so I could kick my old cancer-ridden bag to the curb. I would be happy to max out my Tiffany's account for such a sterling example of Christian womanhood.

While Ms Given's commentary does engender blog topics, I submit it will not have any effect on the Presidential race. The lady does have to fill column inches on a regular basis, and any port in a storm in her case. As noted above: who is Ms Givens and why are her opinions important?

Robin Givhan (born 1965) is the former fashion editor for The Washington Post. She left The Washington Post in 2010 and is now the fashion critic and fashion correspondent for The Daily Beast and Newsweek. She won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for criticism, the first such time for a fashion writer. The Pulitzer Committee explained its rationale by noting Givhan's "witty, closely observed essays that transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism."

The native of Detroit, Michigan was valedictorian at Renaissance High School in 1982, graduated from Princeton University in 1986, and holds a master's degree in journalism from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. After working for the Detroit Free Press for about seven years, she held positions at the San Francisco Chronicle and Vogue magazine. She has been employed on and off with The Post for more than 10 years. She moved from New York City to Washington, D.C. in 2009 where her fashion beat was expanded to also cover First Lady Michelle Obama.

Givhan appeared as a guest on The Colbert Report in January 2006.

The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, Detroit Free Press, the San Francisco Chronicle, Vogue and The Colbert Report?

Jesus, I'd think she'd be so embarrassed, and feel like such a phony, to have so much liberalism attached to her. There isn't one objective outlet in that entire line-up. And a Pulitzer for someone who writes about fashion?

It's just Left-wing Affirmative-Action for as far as the eye can see,...

"Actually though Obama is tall and has a slim look, if you notice his waist without a coat, you will see he isn't that slim. Ryan is slim but is very broad shouldered I noticed for the first time yesterday when he wasn't wearing his coat."

I thought Ryan looked surprisingly chubby when I saw him in person on April 1st.

"While Ms Given's commentary does engender blog topics, I submit it will not have any effect on the Presidential race. The lady does have to fill column inches on a regular basis, and any port in a storm in her case. As noted above: who is Ms Givens and why are her opinions important?"

I hear you, having read meaningless sports stories and columns my whole life.

I will certainly acknowledge Ms Given's opinions on fashion. And it sounds like she has actually done some good work on distributing clothing to those who might need it. Good for her. Her opinions on economic policy, foreign policy and presidential politics, however, are less compelling--actually I prefer Michael Barone.

Givhans is a snarky type whose columns occasionally have become widely cited as if her comments on clothes were telling psychological insights into politics, into the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and so on. So this is a first shot at trying to reduce the debate over the country's economic future to a giggle over the Mid-West and how it dresses. Snark won't keep Social Security going. Besides, as Althouse is pointing out, Givhans is just saying that Obama is the cool kid while Romney/Ryan are geeks (though handsome geeks.) But who do we want to handle the budget problem?Tow-headed implies: white picket fence, old swimming hole, old apple tree and other Washington cliches about Wisconsin as well as while Anglo-Saxon child.PS. I has to look up "cervical halo" and "moby" but I knew Givhan and "tow-headed". I tell you, you can't get through the comments in this blog without a dictionary

Does Robin Givhan have a thing about other people's kids? Does she even have kids? She's the kind of woman I picture sitting alone atop a giant heap of broken eggshells. Kind of a female Humphry Dumphry.

She's worth reading. She's interesting. Worth it and interesting approached as, "oh, what does the clever racist style critic have to say today?"

I want to tell you something that might be interesting. I think of Givhan within in this situation whenever I think of her at all which is whenever Althouse brings her up, although Givhan most likely floated above anything like I saw.

I befriended a very stylish black woman at work. Much more stylish than Givhan appears in her photographs. She was friends with another Black woman who I knew since the start but was never able to connect. Now with my new friend, we connected. Every single day for lunch. Me and two very beautiful stylish black women. The most stylish of all there at the FRB, and there were a lot of stylish women there, in the conservative sense.

Everybody saw this. Nearly every day for years if it was a regular day. Because of that, the obvious affection the two women had for me, the observable fun we had every day, all of the other blacks there automatically accepted me whereas before they did not. Before that situation developed, I was the epitome of Caucasian oppositeness. Those friendships opened up a lot of things.

I catered their weddings. That wasn't even a job. That was just host a very involved and expensive party for a friend. Thing like that gained me fame within their community. I was invited to their clubs, and to their events, and MAN did I stick out.

On any of those occasions the women dressed up far more elaborately, beautifully, and thoughtfully, than I have ever seen any group of white women do. That includes the overwrought Sex in the City. I mean it. They are astounding. The women are competitive and outdo each other, I'm sure of it. I've seen their bedrooms. I know, for example, they all collect hats. Full walls of hats. Hat, hats, hats.

I'm putting Givhan at the lunch table with us and she fits right in. Call her racist, okay, fine, I'd be comfortable with her sitting right there saying all that while fastidiously peeling off the thin membrane that separates layers of raw onion. Both ladies do that. It's a thing. They have a thing about that single cell layer that gets looked at so much in high school science class. They liked the sting of raw onion but cannot stand the thin membrane, neurotically cannot stand it, so before anything else at lunch, the two women and if Givhan was there the three women pick pick pick with their meticulously manicured fingernails.

Meanwhile, why would Rep. Ryan display his children unnecessarily? When Piper Palin groomed Trig Palin at the 2008 RNC, people complained she was an uncouth 5-year-old. I thought it was natural and charming. Why should Paul Ryan subject his children to that?

OT but in ans to your previous musings about "legs" and 77 Sunset Strip: You're wrong. It was actually Mart Tyler Moore playing the role of "Sam" the telephone receptionist in "Richard Diamond: Private Detective" starring David Janssen in which all one ever saw of her were the legs as she sat at the telephone switchboard.. (and heard the voice, of course)

I'm putting Givhan at the lunch table with us and she fits right in. Call her racist, okay, fine, I'd be comfortable with her sitting right there saying all that while fastidiously peeling off the thin membrane that separates layers of raw onion.

By far all most all racism today is directed at White people. No white person could get away writing this article if it was directed at Zero. It is okay to discriminate against a white person through affirmative action and in every other way. But to point out the scientific fact that blanks are intellectually and morally inferior and you are labeled a racist.

By far all most all racism today is directed at White people. No white person could get away writing this article if it was directed at Zero. It is okay to discriminate against a white person through affirmative action and in every other way. But to point out the scientific fact that blanks are intellectually and morally inferior and you are labeled a racist.

"Obama never has a hair out of place either. And Biden? Nary a plug. "

There is an excellent reason why Biden is never shown from behind. His hair plugs are all in front. Unless he has had another hair job, it is hilarious and no recommendation for the hair transplant guys.

Blacks having a lower I.Q. is a scientific fact. Blacks being responsible for a majority of crime is a scientific fact. Africa being Africa, i.e. violent and filled with backward people living in the Stone Age, is a scientific fact.

Was that masacre a racially motivated crime, phx?The shooter was white, but did he kill blacks and only blacks? I don't think he killed any blacks.It was a random shooting. Or are you just really stupid and full of shit?

Are all the pasty white democrats in congress- racist, too? You know, they are white.I'm so glad the left have elevated our conversation to such absurd ridiculousness.

The left do not debate, they simply self-righteously stand back and call everyone a racist. No facts. Debate over.

"There is an excellent reason why Biden is never shown from behind. His hair plugs are all in front. Unless he has had another hair job, it is hilarious and no recommendation for the hair transplant guys."

We might not have Biden to kick around much longer. Has anyone heard from him lately? From what I've been reading, I'm beginning to think he really is going to get dumped and replaced by Hillery.

I think this business of politicians trying for some sort of pseudo business casual look is silly. Some people are shallow, but I doubt likely voters make choices based on whether Romney wears a jacket or not, or whether Obama and Ryan wear ties.

I'm old school: if you're running for office, wear a suit and tie; if it's warm, then take off your jacket; and if it would seem absurd to wear a suit, then dress casual. But the suit-but-no-tie thing seems gimmicky.

I think it's more like-- it's irrelevant to you whether or not Right Track is a moby. It may be an obvious caricature, but in your eyes, it still serves as representative of a typical Republican. It wouldn't occur to you to wonder if it's a moby, because it so conveniently serves to make the point you want to make. Even if it's a moby, as far as you're concerned, it's "fake but accurate."

We had an indepth and rather cranky discussion about the clothing/dressing for an effect issue in the Palin thread.

I really think it is disingenuous for the men to do the rolled up sleeves, coatless look. As if we are too stupid to realize that they are trying to imply..."Look at how hard I am working. I'm the everyman" As if Romney really runs around in a corporate setting in shirt sleeves rolled up.

However, they all do it. I've been in sales all of my life and have done many seminars and presentations. You dress to be appropriate to the setting and audience. Seminar in a board room or Hilton meeting room = business suit, heels, good jewelry Seminar at a rural venue like a fairgrounds building or Lions Club Hall= more relaxed dress or less severely cut suit, flats, less jewelry. Meeting with clients at their home= even more relaxed. Tailored pants, silk blouse, less jewelry. Meeting with the rancher at his cattle yard= Jeans, upscale knit type shirt or light sweater, boots. You get the idea

However, Ryan's casual suit with no tie is very stylish and very commonly seen in the area that I live in (Northern Calif). I see no problem with that look. It spans the look between being the fake rolled sleeves and a too formal for the situation business suit.

It is all psychological. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that we are being manipulated. So???

I know there are conservative racists, but this is so obviously a moby it's embarrassing.

So we have a liberal Washington Post journalist using racist rhetoric to demonize white kids. And now another liberal goes on Althouse and pretends to demonize Obama's kids.

What is it with liberals? Why do you like racial strife, and want to drum up as much of it as possible? Why are you so divisive? Why do you want to divide American society along racial lines? How is that possibly good?

If you're looking for racism and not finding any, shouldn't you rejoice? Why do you have to invent racism? Do you miss it?

I'm genuinely curious about the moby phenomenon. What drives you to pretend to be a racist? Do you have a secret desire to say evil things about black people? Or do you pretend to be evil so you can then pretend to be good? If this is true, shouldn't you have a heroic liberal doppel to denounce the evil right-wing doppel?

Are you actually a pretend racist if all you say is evil? Maybe you actually are a racist. Aren't you worried about that, just a little?

Maybe you should pretend to be good for a while. See where that takes you. Reflect on our common humanity. You can do it. I know you're a liberal but you don't actually have to be an idiot.

I don't want to call you either. You're a partisan who seized on a moby's patently ridiculous comments (whether or not you knew or ought to have known it was a moby) to make precisely the point that mobys serve to make: "RR. Racists for Romney."

I'm sure some partisans from my side would do the same. ("Al Qaeda for Obama.") It just so happens that the pathetic tactic of mobying is much more common from the left, so the right is not so in the habit of using moby comments to make their points.

Doesn't mean the right doesn't resort to strawmen; it's just that the left is much more fond of actually impersonating their strawmen, performing them as characters and pretending (making others believe) they're real individuals. And pointing at these made up characters and going: see, "racists for Romney."

Strange, isn't it. You'd think if so many Republicans were racists, Democrats would have less need to create and perform these Republican racist characters to make their point.

I take your word for it, you didn't know it was a moby. But did you even suspect it might be? Your acknowledgment to campy shows that you found his "moby" verdict plausible. If you did suspect it might be, did that make any difference when you wrote "RR. Racists for Romney"?

And if you didn't suspect it might be... take a good look, so you might recognize a moby when you see one next time. And maybe reconsider what you think you know about your political opponents.

I've figured out an emerging Democratic strategy. It is to denounce partisanship.

Partisanship is a part of democracy and always has been. There is a long history of partisan politics in America. When I was growing up there were even "D" and "R" newspapers and no one was ashamed. There are always at least two ways of looking at things and solving problems.

The decline of news print media and the rise of televised media brought worries over whether one side or the other would have an upper hand and so this trend started of appearing to be non biased and even handed. I don't know what they teach the kids these days in J-schools but it hasn't worked too well. Thankfully, the internet has restored some of the very necessary partisan dynamic. Althouse has captured this in a microcosm.

Althouse also appears to host a disturbing number of bad faith players who want to break rules and post things in bad faith--mobying, etc., I say appears to because I have no proof of this. __________________BTW, I agree with you yashu. I think phx was either egging on the moby or is now ashamed of his or her charge that Romney & Ryan are racists.

Remind me again...Who was it that tied up LAX for hours so he could get a $400 haircut With the liberal disdain for actual thinking comes the same disregard of history. Makes it so much easier to not be a hypocrit. As George Costanza sez--"It's not lying if you believe it to be true."

"Aggressively groomed." How do you aggressively groom your hair? Cut it with a bayonet? Comb it with eagle talons? Romney and Ryan have enviable hair. I don't think either man considers that a significant or even useful fact about themselves. But that's what Givhan picks up on. This poor woman's life has been blighted at the roots by hair envy. She should seek a therapist's help to come to terms with this obsession.

Only balding men aggressively groom their hair. The term aggressively groomed applies to Giuliani's comb over. I suppose you can define Trump's hair as aggressively groomed, but who really knows the dynamics of that creation. Perhaps one should look at it as an artist's first attempt, as someone who has a vision of beauty but has not yet managed to achieve it. At any rate, Ryan's hair appears effortless. That's what make it so enviable.

Also it occurred to me that the moby might not have meant "nappy-headed mistakes" in reference to the Obama kids, but rather he was simply talking about the election of Obama. (See Moby at 12:48).

I thought he was referencing the kids because Ann's post was in regard to descriptions of "tow-headed" children. So perhaps I was reading the moby as more vile than he intended. Which is hard to figure out because the moby is pretending to be vile in the first place. It's a really annoying phenomenon.

Unless Ryan has said that he wants to end survivor's benefits for minor children, anyone saying he intends to do so is a liar.

We all agree that Social Security is in free-fall, financially. We all agree that it's got to be fixed.

But instead of debating how to do that and accepting that there are any number of different *honest* opinions that can be held, anyone who has a plan is portrayed, in this case Ryan, as believing it should be done away with.

As for "hypocrite"... is the person who calls someone that for a benefit they received when they were a CHILD just that stupid or just that dishonest?

Synova - you don't get it. The liberal liars have already said that the GOP wants to "gut" Social Security and Medicare, not just reform it. That's the narrative, and the Lib Superpacs are running those kinds of ads all over the country.

The same drug that is used to shrink the prostate also gives one a healthy growth of hair. (How much more interesting and episodic a man's mature years would be if, instead of the prostate, the penis enjoyed a growth spurt in later years.) This same drug also diminishes the libido. I would recommend that the Democrats suggest that Romney's good hair is a result of proscar and not manlinesss. Perhaps there are things that Romney is not telling us about his hair. The American public would like to see the results of his last ten years of urology check ups.

Thanks AllieOop, I believe Romney and Ryan are sincere about fixing our problems. I believe they both really do love our country and want to leave it a better place for our children and grandchildren. Romney has spent his adult life turning around bankrupt companies and I think he is just what our soon to be bankrupt country needs right now. It seems to me that Ryan is a perfect pardner to help him.

Right Track is obviously a conservative pretending to be an inept lefty Moby as a way to smear the left.

Ha!

I was wondering why there are so many liberal Mobys and so few right-wing Mobys. Maybe it's because conservatives are willing to work hard and round out our characters, so our Mobys never get discovered. Liberals, on the other hand, think they can just mail it in.

Conservatives spend hours, nay days, making our moby personas seem real and life-like. So we get really annoyed when Obama says, "you didn't build that." Yes I did! I created a whole backstory. I had to read Marx and shit like that, just so I could talk the lingo.

Do you think Right Track is reading Hayek? Or even Krauthammer? No. He's running a cartoon re-run. It's Foghorn Leghorn on Althouse.

I don't want Allie to yell at me again, so I won't say this is a symptom of liberal aversion to work. I'll just say put a little effort into it, Right Track. You're not just bored, you're boring.

Saint CroixAre you saying you are Right Track?If you are I would say that is nothing to brag about as hard work. But instead is a reflection on how lazy your fellow Althouse conservatives are in not figuring it out. Also I would say you are one sick puppy.

I'm so glad I don't have to remind anyone that liberals work every bit as hard as conservatives.

Here a rundown of my 4 children. Oldest daughter liberal,Navy, works her butt off. 2nd oldest daughter, stay at home mom, conservative, works her butt off. Third daughter, attorney, liberal, works her butt off. Youngest, my son, Millwright Journeyman, liberal, works his butt off thank goodness! Economy on the upswing?

Allie-I had been think for a while that Right Track (I am pretty sure he is also Right Thinking on a previous thread) was really a conservative Moby. I knew if I was the first to call him out as such and he struck back I would have my man. He tripped into my trap as I suspected.

So why not a liberal moby pretending to be a conservative moby pretending to be a liberal moby pretending to be a conservative?

Huh?

You know, it doesn't work to ignore the obvious moby because someone will come along and link to Althouse and claim that all her commenters are racists and look what she allows to stay on her blog. (And it's not true that ignoring someone makes them go away.) Someone, or a few, have to say something for form's sake even if everyone knows it's a scam. But after the forms are followed what is there to continue on fussing over? The whole thing was boring when it started. That someone thinks he's being clever calling a double-moby doesn't make it suddenly interesting.

Also, no matter how many regressions there are of the mobius moby, a person who pretends to be honestly saying vile racist things *is* a vile racist, or they would refuse to hurt people that way.

Synova, I agree Right Track is a bore and not worth commenting on but it was you conservatives who fell all over yourselves labeling him a liberal Moby when it was obvious he was a conservative prankster. There are very few liberal commenters here (with good reason) and conservatives feel free to act in bad faith towards anyone who do not agree with them.

So perhaps I was reading the moby as more vile than he intended. Which is hard to figure out because the moby is pretending to be vile in the first place. It's a really annoying phenomenon.

How funny-- in response to this, I drafted a comment on the related phenomenon of metamobying, and before I got to post it, metamobying came up on this thread. So now I have to revise the whole thing.

Metamobying (kind of like metafiction) is what Alex often seems to be doing, and of course America's Politico. That can be very annoying too (as Alex often is, sorry Alex), but it's also sometimes a very entertaining performance (I enjoy AP). Cf. also Titus's "fellow Republican."

It's within the realm of possibility that e.g. Alex is Right Track. But any given comment by a righty pretending to be a lefty moby and a lefty parodying a righty may well be indistinguishable.

I don't see metamobying as Jay Retread characterizes it… as nesting levels within levels, like Russian dolls, which theoretically could extend into a mise-en-abyme (a conservative pretending to be a lefty pretending to be a conservative pretending to be a lefty pretending to be a conservative…) What characterizes it for me isn't the nesting levels but rather that (as in metafiction) it self-consciously draws attention to its own artifice. Once you get past two levels, it's not impersonation so much as performance art. NB Alex "mobys" both sides: he frequently sounds as ridiculous as a righty as he does as a lefty.

Mobys are despicable, IMO one of the lowest forms of internet life. Metamobys are mostly OK with me. But the line is sometimes blurred (as in the case of Alex). For me, it falls on the side of "moby" when it functions like slander: fabricating evidence of "racism" by impersonating a racist. It falls on the side of "metamoby" when it functions more like parody, satire, performance.

So even if Alex is Right Track, that doesn't invalidate my original criticism of phx-- if anything, it strengthens it. If, as Jay Retread claims, Right Track is "obviously" a righty pretending to be (parodying) a lefty who's "obviously" pretending to be (parodying) a righty, that makes the presumption that it's a first-level genuine righty all the more absurd.

Right Track served the purpose of a moby, not a metamoby: "RR: Racists for Romney." I despise "racist" mobys and metamobys, doesn't matter whether they're mobys or metamobys, because no matter how "meta" you are, someone (like phx) will take your performance as proof that Republicans are racist. Someone will take you as proof that the Althouse blog is full of racists or Althouse condones racism or attracts racists etc. etc. bullshit (and we know this has frequently been the case). So if Right Track (or Tighty Righty or any of the other loathsome mobys) is Alex, I really wish you'd cut it out.

Perhaps there are things that Romney is not telling us about his hair. The American public would like to see the results of his last ten years of urology check ups.

Whatever the origins of "Right Track" the more important point is that decent people of every political persuasion call it out. It's gotten to the point where if you fail to call out an obvious moby you have to endure being called a racist by default, when in reality all you want to do is ignore the jackass and move on.Can we all just ignore the jackass and move on?

PS I don't know that Alex is a righty. If I had to guess, I'd guess he leans more right than left. But he's an equal opportunity irritator. He irritates me because he often seems merely to disrupt conversation rather than spark it.

But he's not all bad, and sometimes does spark stuff. (But if he really is behind the racist Righty mobys, then he's worse than I thought.)

JR, you really aren't going to get very far trying to claim that conservative prejudices unfairly assumed a liberal moby while liberals are too pure of heart to do anything like that.

You assuming that your side are *obviously* the good guys and conservatives are *obviously* the bad guys is your own prejudice speaking and it's got no more legitimacy than anyone else's.

If you have evidence, or even logic to work on, go ahead and share.

Personally, I don't approve, but if I did that sort of thing I wouldn't try a double-moby on a conservative site, because it would only hurt the conservative site. I'd go to Huffington or KOS or something and be an ass. Or I'd go to one of those stupid "feminist" blogs and talk about how great it was to abort my baby.

I don't and never would, but doing the same thing on *any* site I visit would just be dumb. Like dumb criminal tricks where you shoot yourself in the foot or steal an empty safe or crazy-glue or duct-tape your hand to the front door when you're trying to block your pursuers. Not that anyone has done that, but it would be THAT dumb.

Jay R, Right Track pretends to be overtly right-wing. phx took him to be a typical Republican: "RR. Racists for Romney." In the past, garage and others have quoted Tighty Righty et al as representative of Republicans. Other sites have collected comments like these as proof that the Althouse blog and/or its commenters are racist. Right-wing racists.

So what is it you expect us to do? When campy or I or anyone else calls someone out as "moby," what we mean is: this is an act. Do not take this person at face value. Whether it's a moby or metamoby gets into hermeneutical distinctions that at the end of the day are peripheral to the main point: disregard this voice, it's not what it pretends to be.

It's all very well for you to feel offended that someone might think the left engages in mobying (gasp, no, really, you don't say?). Frankly I think we have more reason to object to being characterized as racists (as we have been in this very thread by phx), in an election season that has the race card out in full force.

I don't know what the Righty troll thinks it's doing. All too many people take it at face value ("racist for Romney"), so I will call out its bullshit when I see it.

The most vile racist I ever knew was my beloved grandfather (passed away around 1990 at the age of 87). He was of a different time, having grown up in rural Texas in 1904. He ran guns and booze for the mob in the '30s and while he harbored no hatred for non-whites, he had a colorful term for everyone. It was just the way it was for his generation.

I read the troll and thought, "whoa, Neanderthals still walk among us." Comments so coarse, only a cave-man could do it.

Then I thought, "squirrel," and strolled past. Trolls get their jollies by inciting responses.

The only race I care about is human. (sorry all you Cro-Mags reading this--you really should have evolved when you had the chance) -CP

Wow. WV gave me, like, a 20-digit number to type in. No way, Jos... okay. Just refresh and grab that tasty single-digit.

bbkingfish wrote:If only I could meet a nice young woman like her, so I could kick my old cancer-ridden bag to the curb. I would be happy to max out my Tiffany's account for such a sterling example of Christian womanhood.

It is government that is parasitic, for the government can't exist without the private sector (capitalism) generated revenue to pay for government. Obviously we need some government such as defense, police, etc. but a totally efficient government would be no bigger and cost no more than necessary.

Ann took down my comments that clearly demonstrated that the moby was really a conservative posing as a ham-fisted liberal moby to make liberals look bad. But she left up some of the moby's most offensive comments.

This might be deleted too as part of the moby conversation, but in case phx has a chance to see it:

Fair enough, phx. I didn't mean to be so hard on you personally, but on mobys and how they facilitate malicious generalization-- but also foster misunderstanding and misinterpretation. In that respect, they hurt people on both sides of the conversation. I do think (generally speaking) you're a good faith commenter, so I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

Ann takes down my comments that provides proof that Right Track is a conservative moby but leaves up his 11:15 a.m. comment...

"By far all most all racism today is directed at White people. No white person could get away writing this article if it was directed at Zero. It is okay to discriminate against a white person through affirmative action and in every other way. But to point out the scientific fact that blanks are intellectually and morally inferior and you are labeled a racist."

Clearly, Ann scoured this post to remove my comments that made conservatives look bad. I guess Right Track's racist comments did not need the same kind of attention.

He's supposedly now just 163 pounds, at 6'2" tall. That's thin to the point of being skeletal.

Eh. When I reached 6'2" (at age 16 or so) I weighed 139I was 6'2" and 120 lbs at 16. It all depends on the bone structure. Now I'm in the high 150's and not skeletal.

If only I could meet a nice young woman like her, so I could kick my old cancer-ridden bag to the curbHe left the cancerous wife for Marianne, not Callista. Can't you keep the Gingrich mistresses straight?

SynovaMy comments that unmasked Right Track as a racist conservative Moby are the ones that Althouse deleted. Ann didn't even bother to take down Right Track's most offensive comments including the one at 11:15 am.

Accounts of what happened next vary in detail, but primary sources agree on a central point: Gingrich wanted to talk divorce with his hospitalized wife."

That's some debunking!

Now, I realize Newt wasn't cheating on his first wife with Callista. He was cheating with the woman who became his second wife. Then, after he married his second wife, he started cheating on her with Callista. I have no idea with whom he now is cheating on Callista, but I'm sure both those fine Anglo-Saxon Christians are proud of their family values. Maybe they'll even write a book about it.

"They liked the sting of raw onion but cannot stand the thin membrane, neurotically cannot stand it, so before anything else at lunch, the two women and if Givhan was there the three women pick pick pick with their meticulously manicured fingernails."

Delightful description. Exactly my experience in the same circs.

Human. Only racists insert a racial (anti-human) animus into the happiness of being human.

Bbkingfish, The meme is that his wife was dying of cancer and he served her with divorce papers while in the hospital. Every one of hose facts is wrong. She wasn't dying. She had a non cancerous tumor, and they had already discussed divorce, long before her going to the hospital. Everything about that story is false. Now, if you want to argue that he was unfaithful, fair enough. By that's not the meme you,re peddling. Why not stick to truthful allegations and not resort to myths?

Here's ANOTHER link that again shows it is a myth, perpetrated by his enemies

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/

One bit from the link above:

In fact, Gingrich, the presidential candidate and former House speaker, and his first wife, Jackie Battley, had already separated before she was hospitalized. He had filed for divorce, and she was seeking alimony and custody of their two children . And while Battley had earlier undergone cancer surgery, this time she was in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor that — according to one of the couple’s daughters — was benign. Battley isn’t talking to reporters, but she’s still very much alive.

The only truth to the story is that he visited her in the hospital and they got into a fight. Got it bbkingfish? Shall I provide more links to show what a liar you are, when it comes to this story?

Bbkingfish:Here in fact is Gingrich's divorce filing, which is dated prior to his wife going into the hospital for her non cancerous tumor.http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/25/gingrich_divorcefile_via_cnn_politics.pdf

The thing about Gingrich is his flaming hypocrisy. Given his own past unsavory personal behavior, he should be more circumspect about the behavior of others. Or, if he feels called to assume a position of moral rectitude and decry the behavior of others, then he should expect to be called out on his own shittiness.

"Bbkingfish, The meme is that his wife was dying of cancer and he served her with divorce papers while in the hospital. Every one of hose facts is wrong. "

jr565, if you re-read my original post, you will see I said nothing of the kind. I merely expressed my desire for a fine upstanding Christian woman like Callista to rescue me from my current travail. The rest of it, apparently, is your mind filling in the blanks.

I honestly don't care where they were physically located when Gingrich informed his first wife that she was through, because he had become a big-shot, she was dumpy, and he was trading up now that he could afford a new model with more modern features. Also, I don't care how many other women Gingrich has cheated with, although it's probably a pretty big number.

I am not going read any of the other sources you cite. I read the first article you cited, and it didn't at all say what you claimed it did.

By the way, if you say Newt didn't lower the boom on wife #1 while she was a patient in the cancer ward, that's good enough for me. I believe you.

As for Newt, he is now on his third wife and his third religion. But as long as he stays with his first political party, he will be able to pull better than 40% of those fine family values Christians in that bastion of Anglo-Saxon pride, the South Carolina GOP.